tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN July 11, 2011 8:30pm-11:00pm EDT
spectrum as a 1.7 gig hertz? however, other agencies use that spectrum. how concerned are you that it will take too long to free that spectrum up, that it might not be within the ten years that ntia, the agency looking at that, would hope to free that up if it decides it can be? >> guest: sure. i think it's important to note, i'm not aware of or we'll find spectrum that is not encumbered in some way. the way we look at it is if you can get the government to have the spectrum, and you can get them focusing on some of it in the commercial space and government space, and you can try to move each of those forward, you have the likelihood that you will have a sort of a rolling out of spectrum over time. some of it sooner, some of it later. we certainly have pushed hard,
you referenced it for our desire of 1755 to 1780 to be made available. i know nti is looking at 1755 up to 1850. we think the focus should be on that initial swath and everything should be done that can be done short of, you know, causing harm to our national security, of course, but, i mean, anything that can be done should be done to reallocate that spectrum, and then, you know, to matt's point earlier about verizon and at&t winning the line share of 700 megahertz, i don't want to be the defender, but sprint and t-mobile did not participate in the auction. we want to bring a large swath to auction and allow everyone who wants to participate the comans to come there and buy assets,. >> host: that's communicators this week. our guest, chris guttman-mccabe of the wireless
today president obama said that he would continue to push congressional leaders for the largest possible deal on deficit and debt reduction and would not consider short-term resolution. both democrats and republicans are hoping to reach a compromise that would clear the way for congress to raise the nation's debt ceiling by august 2nd
deadline to meet next a look at those remarks which runs 40 minutes. >> good morning everybody. i want to give a quick update on what's happening with the debt negotiations and provide my perspective and then take questions to read as all of you know, i met with congressional leaders yesterday. we are going to be meeting again today, and we are going to meet every single day until we get this resolved. the good news is all the leaders continue to believe rightly that it is not acceptable for us not to raise the debt ceiling and to allow the u.s. government to default. we cannot threaten the united states full faith and credit for the first time in our history. we still have a lot of work to do to get this problem solved, and so let me just make a couple
of points. first of all, all of us agree that we should use this opportunity to do something meaningful on debt and deficits and they've been largely accurate by speaker boehner and myself had been in a series of conversations about doing the biggest deal possible so that we could actually result our debt and deficit challenge for a long stretch of time, and i want to say i appreciate speaker boehner's good faith efforts on that front. but all i emphasized to the broad group of congressional leaders yesterday is now is the time to deal with these issues. if not now, wind. i've been hearing from my republican friends for quite
some time that it is a moral imperative for us to tackle our debt and deficit in a seriously. i've been hearing from them is that this is one of the things that is creating uncertainty and holding back investment on the part of the business community. and so, what i've said to them is let's go, and it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, with shared sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, but involve some meaningful changes to medicare social security and medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors but make sure the programs were therefore not just this generation but for the next generation that it's possible for us to bring in revenues in a way that does not impede our current recovery but what is fair and balanced.
we have agreed to a series of spending cuts that will make the government leaner, meaner, more effective, more efficient and give taxpayers a greater bank for their dhaka that includes defense spending, that includes health spending and some programs like very much, and we -- would be nice to have, but that we can't afford right now. and if you look at this overall package, we could achieve a situation in which our deficits or at a manageable level and our debt levels were stabilized, and the economy as a whole life and would benefit from that. moreover, i think it would give the american people confidence in this town can actually do something once and awhile, that we can define the expectations we are thinking in terms of
short-term politics the next election and everyone's in a while we break out of that and do what's right for the country. so i continue to push congressional leaders for the largest possible deal, and there's going to be resistance. there is resistance on my side to do anything on entitlements. there's strong resistance on the republican side to do anything on revenue, but if each side takes a maximalist position, if each side wants 100 per cent of what its ideological freedom positions are then we can't get anything done, and i think the american people want to see something done. they feel a sense of urgency both about the breakdown in the political process and also about the situation in our economy. so, what i've said to the
leaders is bring back to me some ideas that you think can get the necessary number of votes in the house and the senate. i'm happy to consider all options and alternatives that they are looking at, but things i will not consider our a 30 day or 60-day or a 90 day or 180 day temporary stopgap resolution to this problem. this is the united states of america, and we don't manage our affairs three month increments. we don't risk u.s. default on our obligations because we can't put politics aside so i've been very clear we are going to resolve this, and we are going to resolve this for a reasonable period of time and in a serious way, and my hope is that as a
consequence of the negotiations that take place today, tomorrow, the next day and through next week if necessary we are going to come up with a plan that solves our short-term debt and deficit problems, of wade's default, stabilizes the economy and proves to the american people we can actually get things done in this country and in this town. with that i'm going to take some questions. >> thank you very much, mr. president. given that we are running out of time, what is your plan where these go if republicans continue to oppose the tax increases and second, on your point about no short term stopgap measure if it came down to that i know you were opposed to this -- >> i will not sign a 30 day or 60-day extension.
that is just not an acceptable approach, and if we think it is going to be hard, we think it's hard now, imagine how these guys are going to be thinking six months from now in the middle of the election season when they are all up. it's not going to get easier. it's going to get harder so we might as well do it now. pull off a band-aid. eat our peace. [laughter] now's the time to do it. if not now, when? we keep on talking about this stuff and, you know, we had these high-minded pronouncements about how we've got to get control of the deficit and how we would to our children and grandchildren. well, let's step up. let's do it. i am prepared to do it. i am prepared to take on a significant heat from my party to get something done, and i
expect the other side should be willing to do the same thing if they mean what they say that this is an important, and let me then comment on this whole issue of tax increases because there's been a lot of information floating around there. i want to be crystal clear. nobody talked about increasing taxes now. nobody has talked about increases -- increasing taxes next year. what we have talked about is starting in 2013, that we've gotten rid of some of these egregious loopholes that are benefiting corporate jet owners or boreal companies making billions of dollars of profits, but we have said is as a part of a broad package, we should have revenues and the best place to get the revenues are from folks like me who's been extraordinarily fortunate and
millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more going back to the bush tax breaks. and what i've said to the republicans is if you don't like that formulation, and i'm happy to work with you on tax reform that could potentially low were everybody's rates and broaden the base as long as that package was sufficiently progress if so that we weren't balancing the budget on the backs of middle class families and working-class families and we were not letting hedge fund managers or authors of best-selling books off the hook. that is a reasonable proposition. so when you hear folks saying the president shouldn't want massive job killing tax increases when the economy is this week. nobody's looking to raise taxes right now. we are talking about potentially 2013 and the obvious.
in fact, the only proposition that's out there about raising taxes next year would be if we don't really with a payroll tax that we passed in december and i am in favor of renewing it from next year as well but there's been some republicans to say we may not renew it and if we don't renew that, then the thousand dollars that's been going to a typical american family this year as a consequence of the tax cuts and work with republicans in the past in december, that could weaken the economy. so, i have been over backwards to work with the republicans to try to come up with a formulation that doesn't require them to vote sometime in the next month to increase taxes. what i said is to identify a revenue package that makes sense that is commensurate with the sacrifices we are asking other people to make and that i am happy to work with you to figure
out how else we might do it. >> i do not see the fast road to the deal if they do not budge, period. if the basic proposition is it's my way or the highway, then we are probably not going to get something done because we've got a divided government. we've got democrats controlling the senate, we probably are going to need a democratic votes in the house for any package that can possibly pass, and so if in fact mitch mcconnell and john boehner are sincere, and i believe they are, we don't want to see the u.s. government default, then they are going to have to compromise just what democrats. just like i have shown myself willing to compromise. >> thank you, mr. president. you said that everybody in the room is willing to do what they have to do to get something done
by august 2nd but isn't the problem of people who are not in the room and in particular republican presidential candidates and republican t party and the american public polls showed that only 24% of americans that you should raise the debt limit to avoid the economic catastrophe. there's still 69% who oppose raising the debt limit and convince the american people we have a crisis here. between the politicians and the public at large the public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a treasury auction goes. they shouldn't. they are worrying about their family and their jobs, worrying about their neighborhood. they have a lot of things on their plate. we are paid to worry about it. i think depending on how raise the question of use it to the american people is a good idea
for the united states not to pay its bills and to potentially create another recession that could throw millions of more people out of work i feel pretty confident i could get a majority on my side on that one and that's the fact. raising the debt ceiling and we see a crisis of confidence in the market and suddenly interest rates are going up significantly and paying higher interest rates on their car loans come on their mortgages, on their credit cards and that's sucking up additional money out of the pockets of the american people. i promise you, they won't like that. now, i will say from a professional politicians know better. and for them to say that we shouldn't be raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible. they know better, and this is
not something that i am making up. this isn't something that tim governor is making up. we are not out here trying to use this as a means of doing all these really tough political things. i would rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes like new programs or the nfl season getting resolved or -- unfortunately this is what is on our plate. before us right now and we've got to deal with it. so, what you write about is the leaders in the room here at a certain point have to step up and do the right thing regardless of the voices of the respective parties to undermine
that effort. i have a stake in john boehner successfully persuading the caucus has this is the right thing to do just like he has a stake in seeing me persuade the democratic party that we should take on these problems we've been talking about for too long but haven't been doing anything about. >> can you come back to the 4 trillion-dollar deal? >> i think speaker boehner has been very sincere about trying to do something big. i think that he would like to do something big. his politics within his caucus are very difficult. you're right. this is part of the problem with a political process where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections were held the political game when we are in the position to try to do something hard. we haven't always laid the groundwork for it, and i think
that it's going to take some work on his side but it's also going to take work on our side in order to get this done. the vast majority of democrats on capitol hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements and would prefer frankly not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems and i'm sympathetic to their concerns because they are looking looking after folks hurting and vulnerable and there are families out there and seniors who are dependent on some of these programs, and what i tried to explain to them is number one, if you look at the numbers, and medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes. it's not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing.
if you are a progressive who cares about the integrity of social security and medicare and medicaid and believes that it is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and after the most vulnerable and we have an obligation to make sure that make those changes required to make it sustainable over the long term and if you are a progressive that cares about investments and head start and student loan programs and medical research and infrastructure, we are not going to be able to make progress on those areas if we haven't gotten our fiscal house in order. so, the argument i am making in my party is the value we care about making sure that everybody in this country is a shot at the american dream and freddie is out there -- everybody's out there to succeed if they work hard and live a responsible life and the government has a role to
play in providing some of the opportunity to things like student loans and making sure that our roads and highways and airports are functioning at making sure that we are investing and research and development for the high-tech jobs in the future if you care about those things then you've got to be interested and figured out how do we pay for that in a responsible way? and so yeah, we are going to have a sales job. this is not pleasant. it is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. the reason we of a problem right now as people keep on avoiding heart of things and now was the time to go ahead and take it off. >> [inaudible] with a 4 trillion-dollar deal if you're talking about it seems
now about 4-1 spending and taxes we're talking about 800 billion in the taxes roughly that doesn't seem very fair some democrats and i'm wondering if you could clarify why we are at that level and to clarify your social security position with any of the money in the social security even from the changed to go to the deficit >> social security is not the source of the deficit problems. social security if it is part of a package would be an issue of how we make sure social security extends its life and strength. the reason to social security is to strengthen social said today to make sure they are there for seniors in the out years, and the reason they include that in this package is if you're going to take tough votes you might as
well do it now as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future. >> with respect to a balanced package, is the package so we are talking about exactly what i would want? no. i might want more revenue and fewer cuts to programs that benefit middle class families trying to send their kids to college or benefit all of us because we are investing more in medical research, so i make no claims that somehow the position speaker banner and by discuss reflects 100% of what i want. but that's the point. my point is that i'm willing to move in their direction in order to get something done. and that's what compromise in
tales. we have a system of government in which everybody has got to give a little bit. now, but i will say is that the revenue components that we have discussed would be significant and what target folks who can most afford its come and if we don't do any revenue because you may hear the argument that why not just go ahead and do all the cuts and we can delete the revenue issues in the election, you will hear that from some republicans. the problem is that if you don't do their revenues, then to get the same amount of savings you have to have more cuts, which means that its seniors poor kids or medical researchers or
infrastructure that suffers, and it -- i do not want, and i will not accept a deal in which time asked to do nothing. in fact i am able to keep hundreds and thousands of dollars in additional income that i don't need while a pair and is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college finds out to have a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans. that's what the revenue debate is about. it's not because i want to raise revenues for the sake of reading decrease in revenue or have a grand ambition to create a bigger government. it's because if we are actually going to solve the problem, there are finite number of ways to do it, and if you don't have revenue, it means you are putting more of a burden on the people who can least afford it.
and that's not fair. the american people agree with me on that. stegano plan at 9.8% [inaudible] what do you say to the members of the party? >> our biggest priority in this administration is getting a the economy back on track and putting people back to work. now, without really getting the past, i am absolutely convinced and the vast majority of the economists are convinced the steps we took in the recovery act saved millions of people their jobs were created a whole bunch of jobs, and part of the
evidence of that is as you see what happens with the recovery act phasing out. when i came into office and budgets were hemorrhaging at the state level, part of the recovery act was giving states help so that they wouldn't have to lay off teachers, police officers, firefighters. as we have seen that federal support for states to manage, and you've seen the biggest job losses in the public sector. teachers, police officers, firefighters losing their jobs. so, my strong preference would be for us to figure out ways that we can continue to provide help across the board. but i moderating within some political constraints here because whatever i do has to go through the house of representatives. what that means then is that among the options that are available to us is for example the payroll tax cut which might
not be exactly the kind of program that i would design in order to boost employment but does make a difference because it puts money in the pockets of people who were then sending it at businesses large and small that gives them more customers coming increases demand and gives business a greater incentive to hire, and that would be for example component of this overhaul package. unemployment benefits. again, puts money in the pockets of folks out there knocking on doors to find a job every day, giving them those resources that puts more money into the economy and that potentially improved the climate for businesses to want to hire. as part of the component of a deal it think it's important for us to look at what are the steps we can take short term in order
to put folks back to work. i'm not somebody who believes just because we solved the deficit and debt problems short-term, medium-term and long-term that that automatically solves the unemployment process. i think we still have to do a bunch of stuff including fricks apple trade deals before the congress right now that could have tens of thousands of jobs, republicans gave me this list at the beginning of this year as a priority something they thought they could do but now i'm ready to do it and so far we haven't gotten the kind of movement that i would have expected. we've got the potential to create an infrastructure bank that could put construction workers to work right now rebuilding the roads and bridges and vital infrastructure across the country. those arrests are still areas of think we can make enormous progress. i do think that if the country
as a whole season washington act responsibly, compromise is being made, the deficit and the death being dealt with for ten from 15, 20 years that will help with business is feeling more confident about aggressively investing in this country, foreign investors saying america's got its act together and are willing to invest, and so it can have a positive impact overall growth and employment. it's not the only solution. we are still going to have to have a strong jobs agenda, but it is part of a solution i might add it is the primary solution the republicans have offered when it comes to jobs. they keep on going out there and saying mr. president, what are you doing about jobs?
when you ask what would you do, we've got to get government spending under control and we've got to get our deficit under control. so i say okay, let's go. where are they? i mean, this is -- this is what they claim will be the single biggest boost to business certainty and confidence. so what's the holdup? with respect to social security, as i indicated earlier, making changes to these programs is so difficult that this may be an opportunity for us to go ahead and do something smart that strengthens social security and gives not just this generation but future generations the opportunity to say this thing is going to be in there for the long haul. now, that may not be possible and you're absolutely right that, as i said, social security is not the primary driver of our long-term deficits and debt. on the other hand, we do want to make sure that social security's going to be there for the next
generations, and if there is a reasonable deal to be had on it, it is one that i'm willing to pursue. >> are there things with respect to social security, like raising the retirement age, means testing -- for those too big a chunk for -- >> i'm probably not going to get into the details, sam, right now of negotiations. i might enjoy negotiating with you, but i don't know how much juice you got in the republican caucus. [laughter] that's what i figured. all right. leslie clark. >> thank you, mr. president. have you -- you talked with economists, you said the economists agreed that the deal needs to be made. would you -- have you worked with the new u.s. business leaders at all to lobby congress to raise the debt ceiling cracks and if so, who are you talking to? >> i have spoken extensively to
business leaders. and i'll be honest with you. i think that business leaders in the abstract want to see a resolution to this problem. what i found is that they are somewhat hesitant to weigh in on some of these issues even if they are willing to see something privately to me partly because they have a whole bunch of business pending before congress and they don't want to make anybody mad. so this is a problem of our politics and politicians, but it's not exclusively a problem of our politics and politicians. if the business community is a lot like everyone else which is we want to cut everybody else's stuff and we want to keep our stuff. we want to cut our taxes but if you want to raise revenue with somebody else that's okay, and that kind of mind-set is why we never get the problem solved.
there have been business leaders like warren buffett wife thinks spoke out forcefully on this issue. i think some of the folks who participated in the polls and some commission made it very clear now that they would agree to a balanced approach even if it meant for them individually, but today -- they were seeing higher taxes on their income given that i think the average ceo if i'm not mistaken saw a 23% raise this past year while the average worker saw a zero to 1% last year so there's a lot of well-meaning business people out there who recognize the need to make something happen but i think they've been hesitant to be as straightforward as i would like when is this is what a balanced package means. we've got spending cuts.
it means we've got some increased revenue and that we are taking on some of the drivers of the long-term debt and deficits. >> can you say whether or not the at ministrations the six as the clock ticks down with the administration is working on the consensus? >> we are going to get this done by august 2nd. >> as a follow-on chip's question you said that the speaker has confidence he can deliver the votes on anything that he agrees to. is he in control of the caucus? >> that is a question for the speaker, not a question for me. my experience with john boehner has been good. i think he's a good man who wants to do right by the country. i think that is -- as chip
alluded to, the politics that swept him into the speakership were good for a midterm election. they are tough for governing. and part of what the republican caucus generally needs to recognize is that american democracy works people listen to each other and are willing to give the benefit of the doubt. we assume the patriotism, good intentions of the oversight, and were willing to make some sensible compromises to solve the problems and i think there are members of the caucus that haven't fully arrived at the realization yet. >> your confidence was shaken away from him walking by the big deal? >> these are a tough process and look, in fairness a big deal
would require a lot of work on the part of harry reid and nancy pelosi and myself to bring democrats along. but the point is if everybody gets in the fodor at the same time it doesn't tip over. i think that was bob dole's famous comment after the striking the deal with the president and mr. gingrich that in the 90's, and that is always the case when it comes to difficult but important tasks like this. >> last question. april. >> mr. president, on the issue of sacrifice. in 2009, you said that -- expect the worst to come. we have not seen the worst yet. and now which of these budget cuts looming, you have minorities, poor, the elderly, as well as people who are scared of losing it jobs fearful. and also, what say you about
congressman chaka fattah's bill, the debt-free america act? do you support that bill? are you supporting the republican bill that is similar to his, modeled after congressman chaka fattah's bill? >> well, i'm not going to comment on a particular bill right now. let me speak to the broader point that you're asking about, april. this recession has been hard on everybody. but obviously it's harder on folks who've got less. and the thing that i am obsessed with, and have been since i came into office, is all those families out there who are doing the right thing every single day, who are looking after their families who are just struggling to keep up, and just feel like they are falling behind, no matter how hard they work.
i got a letter this past week from a woman whose lost his job and the pavement finally found a job they felled and like things were stabilizing and six months later he lost his second job and now they are back looking again figuring out how they are going to make ends meet and just hundreds of thousands of folks out there who really have seen the stuff in the economy as we've seen in our lifetimes. now, we took very aggressive steps when i first came into office to yank the economy out of a potential great depression and stabilize its and we were
largely successful sterilizing it, but we still listed at a level where unemployment is still too high and the economy is not growing fast enough to make up for all the jobs that were lost before we took office in a few months after to office. so, this unemployment rate has since. there's a couple ways we can solve that. number one is to make sure the overall economy is wrong and so we have continued to take a series of steps to make sure there's money in people's pockets and they can go out there and spend. ducks with the payroll tax cuts were about we've taken steps to make sure businesses are willing to invest and that's what the small business tax cuts and some of the tax breaks for companies willing to invest in plants and equipment and zero capital gains
for small business that's what i was about was giving business is more incentive to invest. we have worked to make sure that training programs out there for folks having to shift from jobs that may not pyxis anymore so they can get the training they need for the jobs to do it but those are improved and sharpened. we've put forward a series of proposals to make sure that regulations that may be unnecessary in are hampering some businesses from investing that we are examining all those for the costs and benefits and they are not providing the kind of benefits in terms of the public health and clean air and clean water and worker safety that have been promised and we should get rid of some of those regulations, so we've been looking at the whole man you loved steps that can be taken. we are now in a situation where
because the economy is moved slower than we wanted, because of the deficits and debt that result from the recession and the crisis that taking an approach that costs trillions of dollars is not an option. we don't have that kind of money right now. what we can do is to solve this underlining debt and deficit problem for a long period of time so then we can get back to having a conversation about since we now have solved this problem that's not no longer with tampering economic growth or feeding business and uncertainty. everybody feels the ground in our feet. those are strategy's we can pursue that would focus on
targeted to job growth, infrastructure being a primary example. the infrastructure bank that we propose is relatively small but can we imagine a project where we are rebuilding roads and bridges and ports and schools and broadband lines and smart grids and taken all those construction workers and putting them to work right now i can imagine a very aggressive program like that but the american people would rally are down and be good for the economy not just next year or the year after the the next 20 or 30 years but we can't even have that conversation if people feel as if we don't have our fiscal house in order. so the idea here is let's act now, let's get this problem off the table and then with some firm footing the situation we would then be in the position to
make necessary in the future. so this is not a right or left conservative liberal situation. this is how do we operate in a smart way of understanding we have got short-term challenges and longer-term challenges if we can solve some of those long-term challenges that frees up some of our energy to be able to deal with short-term ones as well. thank you, everybody. >> also today house speaker john boehner said the debt limit must be raised but the u.s. house won't pass a bill with tax hikes. his comments came during an afternoon press conference at the u.s. capitol, and they run just a few minutes.
>> i appreciate what the president said today about the need for us to come together and get this done. our disagreements are not personal. they never have been but between the two parties now is about policy. it's not about process, and it's not about personalities. if we agree the current levels of spending, including entitlement spending are unsustainable. the president and i do not agree in his view that the government needs more revenue through higher taxes on job creators. the president and i also disagree on the extent of the entitlement problem and what is necessary in order to solve it. most americans would say that a balanced approach is a simple one. the administration gets its debt limit increased and the american people get their spending cuts, and reforms and adding a tax
increases to the creation. the american people understand tax hikes destroy jobs. the last thing we should be doing right now at the time of 9.2% unemployment is enacting more government policies that will destroy jobs. what the american people want this for us to work together to remove the government barriers that are getting in the way of job creation and real economic growth. to of the biggest obstacles to job growth that we face our out-of-control entitlement spending and the current tax code. and i think the fundamental questions or this: can you control government spending without fundamentally reforming entitlements? i think the answer is no. do you need to raise taxes in order to get control of spending? i think the answer is no. if you want to see an increase
in government revenues, then let's grow the economy and create jobs, broaden the tax base and lower rates. the senator said last week we don't need more taxes. what we need are more taxpayers. so our disagreement with the president isn't about closing the loopholes. none of us are fond of the polls. our disagreement is over the idea of raising taxes on the people we are asking to create jobs in our country. i would agree with the president the national debt limit must be raised, and i am glad that he made the case for it today. but the american people will not accept, and of the house cannot pass a bill that raises taxes on job creators. the house can only pass a debt limit bill that includes spending cuts larger than the hike in the debt limit as well as real restraints on future spending. my colleagues and i believe we should enact a balanced budget amendment to keep the federal
government from spending us into the same situation again. wilson and production and spending right now and spending caps to ensure any progress we make is in its undone in the future. i agree with the president we cannot allow the nation to default on our debt. but to prevent a default a bill must pass the congress, and a bill that doesn't meet these tests can't pass the house of representatives. this is a message we will take again to the white house today and hope we can work of the way through this. faugh >> the president set aside the taxes u.s. senator 80 to 100. how can you get past that? >> i do think that an agreement
we come to is going to have to pass the house and senate bipartisan basis. >> an extraordinary moment at the white house the democratic president saying we need to cut entitlements [inaudible] with this issue? >> this moment seems to have gone away this idea of a big agreement that would truly deal with a deficit. >> we've been involved in i think a very sincere and honest negotiations and honest discussions, and i think the president and i both understand that the nation faces a very difficult decision, and there clearly is no personality difference between the president can buy. i get along with him fine. this boils down to two things and i said on saturday night. the president continues to
insist on raising taxes and they're just not serious enough about fundamental entitlement reform to solve the problem for the near to intermediate future. i want to get there. i want to do what i think is in the best interest of the country but it takes two to tango and they are not there yet. >> [inaudible] talk to the president about the deal of $4 trillion -- >> no tax increases ever. there was never any agreement to allow tax rates to go out in any discussion - ever had with the white house, not once >> the president said today he is prepared to take significant heat from his party to get something done. are you no longer were not willing to take similar heat? if you are, where?
>> yeah understand this is going to take sacrifice and it's going to take political capital on both sides, and i'm certainly willing to take my fair share but if we are going to take political capital let's step up and do the digging and the right thing for the country. >> what kind of non-tax revenue if any have you suggested as a compromise on your part to bring revenue? >> as you're very well aware, there was a big conversation under way about revenues. revenues in the context of tax reform, lowering rates, broadening the base which encourage more economic activity and real growth in our economy that are going to result in additional revenues to the federal permit. there is in fact a way to do
this, but that conversation can't continue if they are not serious about fundamental reform of the entitlement program. >> sorry, but i've got to go to the white house. >> [inaudible conversations] >> the senate to gaveled in this afternoon as congressional negotiators met with president obama to work on a debt and deficit reduction agreement. senate kent conrad it described his plan and after that, republican senator orrin hatch response to that plan.r. pre this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> mr. president, falling any leader remarks, the senate will tsume the notion to proceed ton s1323e bill to express the sense of the senate on sharede
efcrifice and resulting budgettd deficit with the time until 5:30 equal the divided between the two leaders of the designees ann at 5:30 there will be the vote to proceed to s1323. mr. president, i understandinghd that s1340 is at the desk and ic to create new greeting. r of the bill a second time. >> to cut and balance the federal budget.. >> i would object to any furthed proceedings with respect toin te bill. >> the of junction as herd and placed in the calendar and the provisions ofnd rule 14. mr. president, we are in the midst of a defining debate onof the budget of the united states.
all of us understand we have a e debt threat looming over thisave country that's as significant as anything we have faced.mbers ofe mr. president, democratic members of the senate budgetcomh committee have worked for weekse to devise a blueprint faugh shot the thing has merit and deserves to be part of the debate and som ut. president, today i am here o to outline the key elements of the budget blueprint. first of all, i think it's critically important we all as understand we are emanationery r borrowing 40 cents of every we dollar that we spend. circumstance. chairman the chairman of the joint chieft of staff has indicated that ourr national debt is our biggestthis national security threat. the top military men in the country saying the debt threat is the most serious nationalhat?
security threat. why does he say that? because here are the facts. thei the debt of the united states, the gross debt all the debt we go is now approaching 100% of all of gross domestic product,el the highest level since after world war ii.ws this chart shows a threshold of 90% of gross debt of 90%. o now that we draw that line on this chart because best mr. president, the best evidence the 90% threshold on the gross debt of a any nation, you are iu the danger zone, you are in the red zone. the distinguished economist, and rinehart and ken f wrote a book growth in a time of debt.f here's the conclusion. we examine the experience of the o4 countries standing up to twot
sentries of data on the centrale government debt, inflation and t growth. our main finding is across both advanced countries and emerging markets high debt to gdp levels, 90% and above are associated with notably lower the growth comes. mr. president, this is a key fact of our colleagues need to e know. ove ehen you're gross debt goes over 90% of your gross domestic product commodore future economic prospects are. diminished. fer that means fewer jobs created, less economic opportunity, a nation that is at risk. whe mr. president, that's where we w are. and look at what the congressional budget office says is where we are headed on the current trajectory we are headed for a debt that will go to 200%
of the gross domestic product oi the country, and this is not the gross debt, this is the publicly held debt which is smaller than the gross debt, so this chartlyd now looks at the publicly held debt and says that is headed for 200% of gdp. is mr. president, we cannot stay ol this course. it is critically important that we change direction. perce for every one percentage point in interest that we pay, $1.3 trillion is added to the st debt. for those who say don't worry lm about the itdebt limit, let's remind them that what will occur if the united states refused tos pay the bill but it's already it incurred is that the interest rates will go up, those who havu loaned us money if we redid of our commitment to pay them well then insist on higher interest
rates all borrowers will insistt on higher interest rates and fon every 1% increase in interest, and we will pay $1.3 trillion more on our debt. so those who think somehow by t not extending the debt limit wee are going to help, no, just the opposite is true. i that debt will increase and increase dramatically. hd mr. president, here are the hard facts with respect to thending relationship between spendingas0 and revenue over the last 60 years in this country. the red line is the spending line, the green line is thene. revenue line. s and what this shows very clearly is that spending is the highesta it's been as a share of gdp inye 60 years. yes, we have a spending problem, but it does not exclusively a pm spending problem as some ofs search on this floor, andas a
because revenue as a share ofloe gdp is the lowest it has been i. 60 years. to deny the significant elements of a compromise that are required to solve this problem. mr. president, spending is the highest it's been in 60 years as a share of our national income. revenue is the lowest it has been in 60 years as a share of our national income. both have to be addressed if we're going to solve this problem. and for those who say well, it's not a revenue problem, yes, it is. this is an article that appeared sunday, may 1, in "the washington post"." on the way to a surplus, a re the way to a surplus, a in 2001 we were told we were ong the way to pay off the debt oftf the united states. this article by laurie b montgomery in the washington
post on may 1st indicated the ofndamental reasons that, instead of paying off the debt,d we have a debt that is mushrooming. o this one paragraph says it all.h the biggest culprit by far has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. together the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president george w. bush and to a lesser extent by presidenten obama white down $6 trillion inn anticipated revenue. this is nearly half of the f $12 trillion swing from surpluss projected surplus to real that.l federal tax relief -- collection now stands at their lowest levey as the percentage of the economy in 60 years.
the point that i just made. mr. president, when democrats on the senate budget committee approached this problem we looked at it in historical perspective. how do we get into this problemt half of it is on the revenue so we chose to. deal with a solution that deals on both sides of the ledger.o yes, cut spending.pendg. absolutely. that must be done. we also cut the so-called taxexr expenditures that are really just spending by another name. loopholes, exclusions, deductions, tax preferences,fere abusive tax shelters, and tax ve havens that are emerging revenue that rightfully belongs in the treasure. people avoiding what they legitimately go to the unitedag states but by engaging inhes abusive tax shelters and taxis havens, it is costing us sub
substantial revenue.nt we will get into the specifics of that. republi the house republicans chose a different path. t they only want to focus on halfl the problem.ocusn the only one to spoke as --on't focused on the spending side of the equation. they want to test the revenue. i believe that justifies reality. m the hard way fro reality of how we got in this a, situation. and, again, we got there byt isg spending that is higher than it has been in 60 years. a share of national income. also revenue that is lower than it has been at any time in 60 years. mr. president, if we are thisesf truthful with ourselves we will have to deal with both sides ofs this equation. . mr. president, the plan that senate democrats on the budget committee have agreed on looks d at the budget framework that includes rou
includes roughghly the same amot of deficit reduction as thee ren house republican plan. we in fact, we have somewhat more r deficit reduction than the day. they had a plan that was r $39 trillion. $4 mr. president, the actual difference is about $50 billionf but because of rounding it turne tht that $3.9 trillion, the actual difference is about $50 billion more in deficition reduction in the plan worked by senate democrats on the budget committee. so, mr. president, this is what happens to deficits as a share of gdp under the framework that we are offering.yo you can see, this year the deficit is nine.f grs 3% of gross domestic product. we bring it down very steadily until we get down to pay 3%.er
and a lower deficit in dollar a terms, a lower deficit as a share of gdp than the house republican plan. let me repeat that. the senate democrats on the redget committee, our plan reduces the deficit by the tente republicans in total and then the tenth year we have a lowernl loficit in dollar terms and a lower deficit as a share of gdp. mr. president, this is whathappt happens to the debt itself, the gross debt. as you can see, it peeks out asg 100% in 2011 and we bring it down gradually, but steadily to% about 98% by 2021. is, the key is, instead of having dt the deadline going up, up, and away, bearing this country undeu a mountain of debt, we stabilize the debt and begin to bring it
down, something that everyus serious economist has said isy absolutely essential.ms o mr. president, in terms of spending i indicated the current spending is the highest it hasa been as a share of gdp in 60 years. our plan takes that down from 24% of gdp to 23 percent and then freeze is it that 22 percent of gdp for the rest of this decade. now, some will say, there go the democrats again spending too much money. i said to them, if we could get the spending down to the levels that were obtained during the reagan administration, would that be acceptable? that is exactly what we do. under the plan of senate budget committee democrats, we get sene spending to the exact same levee that retained during the administration of ronald reagane during ronald reagan's eight
years, spending averaged of 22 percent of gdp.at i that is precisely what ourqual spending equals in the budgetfrw framework i outlined here today. mr. president, we include every part of the federal budget,t, including the defense budget. t just as the fiscal commissions did, just as every other bipartisan deficit reduction plan has included, w we looked o defense spending for savings. no part of the budget can be off the table in terms of a deficit reduction plan. i would say separately, social security, we deal with that separately because socialcuty n security need not be, should not be part of a deficit reductiona. plan. s savings on social security ought to be for the purpose of extending the solvency of social security. but in terms of those parts of
spending that are considered on budget, the defense has to be included in any savings. why do i say this?nce look what has happened sinceefen 1997. spending on defense and war has gone from to under $54 billion t year to $688 billion a year. it is a key reason spending has befooded. before the fiscal commission some of the defense analysts, the best defense analysts in thf country came before us until this 51 percent of all federal n employees, the department of defense perry 51% of all federal employees of the department ofts defense. that does not count the c contractors. when i asked these analysts howa many contractors there are,their their response, senator, we can't tell you. i said is that a matter of
security? is that a matter of clearance? no, senator.no, s we don'ten know. kno well, what is the range? range about how many contractors aree there working in the department oftm defense? ar the answer was, senator, 1,109,000,000, between milon. 1,000,009,000,000. we can't tell you. i mean, we have a serious problem of contractors working for the department of defense, d and the department of defense ym can't even tell you how many gog contractors they have working for them. mr. president, we have ae problem. the previous secretary of defense, secretary gates, said this, the budget of the pentagon almost doubled during the past decade. he was rightou about that. but our capabilities did not particularly expand. mon a lot of that money went intond,
infrastructure and overhead. frankly, i think a culture thate had an open checkbook.prest, a mr. president, a lot of thaty money went into infrastructure and overhead, overhead. c frankly, a culture that had an open checkbook.mr mr. president, we can't afford an open checkbook anywhere. we have got to go after waste, i fraud, and abuse in every department spin. we have to go over infrastructure spending that to does not contribute to improvinv defense. we have to go after overhead o costs that have really run amok. mr. president, chairman ryan of the house said this about the"ta fence, there are a lot ofca savings you can get. defense yet, when they came with their plan they continued the path ofe increasing defense spending yeay overea year without anyth discipline.
outl is the plan that they outlined from $529 billion a year to $6,607,000,000,000 aand year.nt t that doesn't count the war funding.. president, in mr. president, and our plan we have done what the fiscal commission called for.e we have achieved the same savings out of security as the fiscal commission did. o $886 billion out of securitynctn function. that includes defense. obviously defense is most oft ie security. securit but in the securityy category cg also falls homeland security, also is included veterans' spending. veterans spending, bysp the way, is one place that we don't cut a nickel.. the veterans deserve to have the promises that we have made to them kept. and under our budget every dollardol
that has been promised to veterans will go to them.. pres, mr. president, that does not mean we can't save money out ofs securities. plan that hass come from anywhere.ive rep fiveub democrats, five republicans, one independent endorsed the plan with o $886 billion of savings over tet years out of security function.e and the budget by senate budgeta committee democrats adopt that finding.mr. mr. president, the budget, the senate budget committee democrats are advancing.e also government-wide savings. we we freeze members of congress why for three years. we freeze legislative branch ane white house budgets for three years. we freeze civilian pay for twoyr years. that has already been adopted.ie
we include that in our budget.ed we reduce the federal vehicle fleet by 20%. frankly in our investigations we find in this area that there have been an explosion of vehicles in the federal fleet. l i think all of us have seen it with our own eyes. this is something that has goteo to be taken on. we reduced travel costs by 20%. we reduced federal printing costs by billions of dollars byr 2015 and we reduce the number of contractors that we previously described.se mr. president, the house republican plan on revenue is really almost impossible to believe. in a circumstance in which we have record debt, and as whi circumstance in which the revenue of this country is the
lowest it has been in 60 years,a what is part of their answer? m. cut taxes more. and cut them for the very wealthiest among us. cut them another trillion for dollars for those who are the most fortunate among us.t, i not mr. president, i'm not making this up. is this is the house republican plan. take a circumstance in which we have record debt, the lowest revenue we have had in 60 yearss and cut taxes for the very wealthiest among us by anotherno trillion dollars. ext extend the top cuts by t $5 million the state taxpres exemption. mr. president, they actually cuu revenues for trillion dollars below the cbo baseline.ine.
let me repeat that. they actually cut revenue in their plan for a trillion ballars below the congressional budget office baseline. mr. president, that is inexplicable. maybe we can start to understand it when we look at what a formee reagan economic adviser saidout about the house republican plan. mr. bartlett said this, distribution only the ryan plane the house republican plan is a monstrosity. cuts while the social safety nen would be shredded to pay for as them. even as an opening bid to begin budget negotiations with the democrats the ryan plan cannot k be taken seriously. a wish it is less of a wish list and a fairy tale, a reallym th r disconnected from the real world, backed up by make-believr
numbers andea on unreasonablen t assumptions. ryan's plan is not even an act of courage. t it is just pandering to the teaf party.ld h a real act ofav courage would he been for him to admit, as all serious budget analysts no, that revenues will have to rise well above 19% of gross domestic product to stabilize that.iden mr. president, revenue today is 14.5 14 and a half percent of gdp, again, the lowest it has been in 60 years. loo if we look at the last five times the budget has beenbala, n balanced in the last 50 years, here is what we see.venues t revenues had to be close to g.d. 20 percent of gdp. 19.7% there were 197% in 1969, 19.9 in 1998, 19.8, and 20.6 and 19.5.
that is the last five times the bu budget has been bounced. those each of those times revenue was now it is 14 and a half percent of gdp. anyone who seriously argues that you can solve this problem juste on the spending side of the equation is not being serious. d mr. president, the budget framework that we offer today t has revenues at 19.5% of gdp,aln almost equivalent to what it wan during the clinton years when we had balanced budgets and, ind fact, stopped using social othe. security money to pay otherdu bills.on during the clinton years revenue averaged 194%.lan, under our plan it averages 19.5%. reven so, revenue is clearly not out t
of line compared to the other times we have balanced the bud budget and, in fact, during they clinton years when we had theno longest economic expansion in this nation's history. sayoh, our colleagues to say, oh, you can't touch revenue or you willl kill the economy, kill job creation. really? how abou at the historic recordh the historic record showing vert clearly that during the clintone years when you had revenue atthv the same levels we have in this plan, the longest economicsin expansion and this nation's those quarters during the clinton years, the longest timeh and then erupted of economic growth in this nation's history, led you had revenue at the same levels that we are talking about in this plan.
mr. president, facts are stubborn things. facts are stubborn things.a pres a previous president said that.r he was right. the fact is, we had the longestr time of uninterrupted growth in our economy during that timeas e which revenue was at the level that we are proposing in this budget. that is a fact.ls mr. president, the proposals and the budget framework also seekto to bring us tax tariffs. tax reform that simplifies the tax code, scales back tax midd loopholes, protect the middle class, improves progress,the promotes economic growth androms u.s. competitiveness because we lower corporate rates.vene. we lower the corporate rates 35%, 29% to make america morefo competitive. we pay for it by closing corporate loopholes.pholes
we also addressed the tax cap. offshore offshore tax havens and abusivex tax shelters and insure that corporations pay their fair share. mr. president, the specifics of our russian proposal are as follows. the tax cuts for so-called bush, era tax cuts are akes tended foo singles earning up to 500 taught -- $500,000 a year and couples earning up to 0 million. mr. president, 99 percent of the american people will seek no rate increase, nine. 99 percent of the american no people will see no rate increase. t 1 percent well, and those areic those sufficiently fortunate to be earning over a millionyear. dollars a year, the top 1 percent in this country. go we asked them to go back to then rates of the clinton era, the top rate of 396%.
kathleen at 20%, dividends at v 20%. when we had the longest economic expansion in our nation's j history. for those who say it is a jobren killer, they have to come up tht here and explain how that can bs sensed history shows something quite different. mr. president, we also provide for alternative minimum tax relief. that costs one and a half trillion dollars. that's not a tax increase. we are lowering taxes that woula be imposed by the alternative ta minimum taxes increasingly taxpayers. we are preventing that from happening. it costs one and a half trillion dollars to fix.t we are replacing that revenue with other revenue. i don't consider that a taxat increase. that is itg merely substituting revenue for revenue that we are
subtracting to prevent middle-class people from being caught up in the alternative minimum tax. r we also reform the estate tax. going back to 2009 levels, threw and a half million dollars a p person, 7 million a couple. that means, well over 99 and aet half percent of the states would be completely exempt. mr. president, that is the fair plan.we also ass we also assume net $2 trillion of additional funds from closing tax loopholes, closing tax subsidies, promoting taxver fairness.rs. that is over ten years. prefees we assume tax preferences for individuals are reduced d amount of offshore tax savingsat and the abuse of tax sheltersic closed. we assume, as i indicated rate earlier, that the corporate rat,
is lowered to 29 percent, offset by reducing corporate tax expenditures and closing corporate tax loopholes,spific specific policies to beined b determined byy the finance a committee as they always are. mr. president, let me indicate, when i indicate that there is a range for reducing tax 9% expenditures from 9-17%n ho depending on how much savings we get from offshore tax havens, tn here is the math. over the next ten years tax preferences or expenditures, asl trey are sometimes called, will cost the treasury $14 trillion.t let me repeat that. the the loopholes, exclusions, preferences in the tax code wili cost the treasury $14 trillion over the next ten years.
will cost the trellasury c anott $14 trillion, and that is according toent sumi the permanent subcommittee on investigations.f so, mr. president, if we recoves nothing from tax havens to react our revenue numbers you would have to reduce tax expenditures 17%. on the other hand, if you o recover 80% of tax haven losses and tax shelter losses the reduction in tax expenditures would only have to be 9%. 17 percent reduction in tax expenditures if you get no a savings from tax havens and tax shelters and 9% reduction in tar expenditures if you recover a%rm of the losses from tax havens and tax shelters. probably the realisticn o to sopectation ought to be somewhere in between thosees.
extremes. mr. president, if cbo scored thl proposal by senate budget, committee democrats they would notre say there is any taxll increase here at all.e let me repeat that.ce if the congressional budget office scored this proposal by senate budget committee democrats, they would say therei is a $765 billion tax cut over ten years. be? how can that be? how can i be saying there is $2 trillion of additional revenue over ten years and the congressional budget office says, if they evaluated thisseno plan by senate budget committee democrats there would say there. is a $765 billion tax cut?e the reason is simple. and our plan we extend all the middle-class tax cuts. in addition, we actually broughx in the middle class tax cuts so
that nobody is affected by a rate increase unless they are a couple earning over a milliondoa dollars a year. we also provide the alternative minimum tax relief to prevent millions of middle-class people as i indicated earlier, that st cost one and a half trillion dollars over the next ten yearsa to shield middle-class taxpayers from that wall. third, we provide a state tax reform at the 2009 levels so that well over 99 percent of thy states are completely shielded, completely exempt.inhen mr. president, again, when our of the republican colleaguesm say, as some of them do, you can't havet a higher tax rate even on thoser earning over a million dollars.? we will kill the economy. really? how about looking at facts.how t
how about looking at thest historic record? how about being informed by what is actually happened before? because when we look at history, f than our friends on the other side of provided.s what we find is the last timethr the top rate for those earning a million dollars was 396% we awth experienced longest uninterrupted economic growth ii the history of the unitedac states. that is a fact.9 we had 39 quarters of economic growth from 1991 to 2000. thirty-two of those quarters bill clinton was the presidentis of the united states. we had a top rate of 396% on couples earning over a million dollars a year.ends mr. president, i have friends o, the other side that say you will
kill jobs. it is fascinating. debat i remember this debate back whed we passed deficit reduction on sie president clinton.other he now our friends on the other side said the exact same thing i again.er leremember, i was seated here listening to the republicanfe leader than claim that if welint passed the clinton plan to get w the deficit down and balance tht budget we would crater thexa economy. those were the exact words that our friends on t used at that time.at if you raised rates on the i wealthiest among us it wouldcono crater the economy. what happened?id w not only dide we not credit the economy, we have the longest time of economic expansion in our nation's history.er 24 million jobs were created, the best record ever.at that is the facts.eall that is what really happened.ere not some fairy tale about what
happens if you get the country back on track, if you move toward balancing the budget., y if you move toward getting the debteb down. i because that is, in fact, what t happens during the clinton years. yes, we had a rate of 396% ons dollars. it did not credit the economy. no. the economy grew. i the longest economic expansioniy in this nation's history. and, mr. president, 24 million jobs were created during that period. the best record ever. mr. president, let's just look again at history. the last five times economic growth was above 4% in this country, the top tax rate was 39.6% on those earning over a million dollars. facts. facts are stubborn things. 1994, top rate was 39.6%.
growth rate 4.1%. 1997, top rate was 39.6%. economic growth was 4.5%. 1988, 4.4% economic growth. 1999, 4.8% economic growth. 2000, 4.1% economic growth. the strongest economic growth going back decades in every year the top rate on people ening the top rate on people ening >> each year when the top-ranked people turning over a zillion dollars was 49.6%, quote we are proposing in this plan. mr. president, i think it is whr undisputed by serious economists of what ever philosophical strike these tax expenditures have to be reined in. dewitt we are now spending
$1.1 trillion on tax. expenditures. m some of the most conservative economists in the country have different name.feldstn, profe mr. president, here's martin thc feldstein, a professor of economics, chairman of the council of economic advisers under president ronald reagan, and he has written a columnfor r solution for the national debt. here's what he said. best cutting the tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending. it's called revenue, but it's really spending. not incre eliminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving and investment or incree icsk-taking.econom eff it will also increase overall economic efficiencies by eliminating or consolidating the number of overlapping tax based
subsidies would also greatly simplified tax finally in at all short cutting tax expendituresrf is not adderall like other waysr of raising revenue.d of the this is from the head of theesid economic advisers under president ronald. this is the senate democratic budget plan does. we cut tax expenditures nine to 17% depending on how much we aro able to save from closing of the offshore tax havens and the tax abusive tax shelters. f if we get no savings from taxwed to reduce tax expenditures 17%.x if we're able to reduce tax havens and other loopholes, the offshore loopholes and abusive tax shelters by 80%, then we would be able to reduce tax
expenditures by 9%. mr. president, martin feldstein said we ought to go after those tax expenditures.n it's also alan greenspan the former chairman of the federal . reserve. here's what he said. republicans sought to identify a very significant amount of so-called tax expenditures whicd in fact our misclassify. are they are expenditures, they are outlays and many are subsidies,g and subsidies are not the type e of thing you want for an efficient market system. there are a lot of them. mr. president, w that's what we are proposing. let's go after these subsidies,e these preferences and exclusions, and while we are at it, let's go after thesee we're, offshore tax havens, abusive tax shelters and shut them down. and if there is any doubt about where this money is going, heret is.s. 26.5 per cent of tax
expenditures go to the top 1% i. this country. e 26.5% of all tax expenditures go to the top 1%. so when we are saying you may en have to reduce tax expenditures 17%, you could do it all, just with the top 1%. those those earning over $1.1 million. a year. because that's where the benefit is going. let me show you in another way. the top 1% in dollar terms, thea value on average of tax are expenditures for those on the top 1% in this country earning $1.1 million a year they get an expenditures of over $205,000 ei
those earning $39,000 a year ths average benefit is $3,000 that the top 1% have a benefit from tax expenditures that is 66 times what people in the middle get. it is not unfair to go to thosei whor have had the greatestonal r benefits for the national economy over the last two decades and say to them we need you to help a little bit more to get out of this rut, this debt rut that we are in.andou know and you know what?that that is not unfair, because thee have had the greatest benefit over the l last 15 years, and
here's something that shows it s think conclusively. effective this is the effective tax rate for the 400 wealthiest taxpayers in america.n in 1992 it was about 27%. tax in 1995, the tax rate of the w wealthiest 400 was 34%. 29.9 to be exact. look what has happened since f 199or5. the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 400ie taxpayers in they ha has gone down to 16.6%. they have had their tax rates cut almost in half, okay? their anybody else have their taxes cut in half? i don't think so.taxes cut the people who have had their taxes cut in half for the so wealthiest among us so it isn't unreasonable to go back to themt and sayo we eminent, we have to
go back to what the tax rates were here, not back to an rate effective rate of 30%. had the top rate we had in the h clinton years adwhen we had the largest economic and largest economic expansion in the nation's history. mr. president, we also know it's presid not just on the individual sidee but on the corporate side asides well., this i this is a little five story building down in the cayman islands. 18,857 companies say beauvis are doing business out of this little bill.ing. anybody believe that? anybody believe 18,857 companies are doing business out of thisit five story building in the cayman islands? m ducksos the most efficient building in the world. imagi
can yneou imagine a little five story building, 18,857 companies say they are doing business out of their. it got maybe 100 employees inld. that building. most those are the most efficient people in the entire world. unbelievable what they areoing. doing. know you know what? they are not doing business,oing they are doing monkey business because what they are doing isea treating all the rest of us who pay what we know. down in the cayman islands, lite 18,857,000 companies colin that little building home because there are no taxes down in the cayman islands, and they're showing their profits and subsidiaries they say aret operating out of that little can building.id p so they can avoid paying taxes s the vast majority pay right herd in the united states. that's outrageous.riends
republican friends say you can'u touch that. it's a tax increase if you do. really. that's a tax increase? i don't think so.ore t >> mr. president, offshore tax s haven abuses proliferating if anybodyng doubts that the google offshore tax haven and see what happens. see what happens if you googleha offshore tax havens. the experts here and the permanent subcommittee on investigations have said this, experts estimated the total loss to the treasury from offshoreto tax evasion alone approaches $100 billion a year including 40 to 70 billion from individuals,0 another 30 billion from billion corporations and engaging in offshore e tax evasion. abusive tax shelters at tens ofo billions more. mr. president, the democrats on the budget committee said we'vee
had it. we are going after those peoplei we are going to insist they pay differs share just like the vasj do. so we ayare saying we are comina after you. you've got a tax haven in the te cayman islands, we are comingisc afterom you.ve got an abusive tax shelter? we are coming after you. it's not fair to all the rest of us paying what we know. mr. president, there are critical priorities that shouldn't be cut. one is education. mrpresid education is the foundation for future economic strength. and educated key source of growth and by and large a major factor in the united states economic dominance in a 20th century.n and in the creation of a broad middle class. deed, t indeed, the american dream of upward upward mobility both within and across generations has been tied
to access to education. claudia goldin and lawrence caps. , future of inequality. , future of inequality. the other reason education matters so much. what mr. president, when we see what our friends on the other sidere are doing, they are cutting education 15%.he we don't believe that's the right pretty for the country. yes, overall spending has to be cut. we do cut spending almost $2 trillion in the democratic almost blueprint. almost $2 trillion in the mr. president, another key whas priorities ener hgy. we know what's happened to gasod prices. from they have soared from $1.81 a gallon and december 2008 to over $3.50 a gallon by july 4th. i just paid $3.77.
we all know what's happened toay gas prices, and many of us believe a key priority is to reduce our dependence on foreig. energy. a house republicans have a different idea.grams they cut the programs to reduce our dependence on foreign energy by 57 per cent. 't don we reject that proposal. we don't think it's a national interest. i mr. president, infrastructure, roads, bridges, airports, here's what the u.s. chamber of of commerce said about infrastructure spending. we if we don't change course overte the next five years, the economy could forego as much as 346 billion lost economic growto as the transportation networks continue to deteriorate.iscal i'm well aware of the fiscalings constraints facing the congresst in the nation. but w me must avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face. and without proper investment and attention to the infrastructuree
the united states economic job stability, potential for jobl growth, global competitiveness and quality-of-life are all at ri. risk. that is from thomas donahue, the president and ceo of the u.s. c chamber of commerce.epublicansn mr. president, republicans in the house were not listening pro because they proposed cutting transportation funding in spther budget by 30%. a we reject that as well to read o mr. president, it doesn't make sense to cut the education, to cut infrastructure, it doesn't make sense. weake it will only weaken our position.ouse and on health care, the house as republican plan in this medicare as we know it and replaces it with a voucher system, a block grants, the commission cost of the seniors, children disabled, and the individual states. it ends the counter cyclical nature of the medicaid program
and the funds healthcare reform increasing the number of uninsured by at least 34 millioe people in this country. mr. president, the house plan, republican plan saves medicare, i don't think so.don't thino. i think it kills medicare. why do i say that? because under traditional b medicare, now the beneficiary pays 25%. someone who is eligible forays medicare is 25% of the bill. hoe in the house republican plan they would pay 68% of the bill.g that stands things on their head.ad instead of people having a medicare as a social safety net when they get to their senior he years they would have it pulled out from under them. . presid mr. president, we have rejected the house gop approach and woulr
remind our colleagues that we lh have had large health carevingsa hevings already enacted last in year in health care reform, the congressional budget office sayn that will save in the second ten years $1.3 trillion. every so yes, everyone has got to beoe on the table. w but we just took a big run at getting our health care costs icck in line. def $1.3 trillion in deficit savingo according to cbo. mr. president, in conclusion,w f the overview of the budgethat framework that we are offering our colleagues for their $ consideration provides $4 trillion in deficit reductios over ten years. it's actually 5 trillion if measured on the same basis as the fiscal commission.hat we we have adopted what we think is a more plausible baseline int light of things that haveed s happened so far this year.
still lies the debt by 2014, tht deficit to 2.5% of gdp by 2015 and 1.3% by 2021. tax r but tax reform that simplifieso, that goes after offshore tax havens and tax shelters and previews fairness and we rejectt the house gop plan to end the to medicare as we know it andwe prt protect education, energy andins infrastructure investments.ic we have balance the deficit and debt reduction plans, cuttinging spending by about $2 trillion, providing additional revenue by about $2 trillion. as let me conclude as i began by r saying ourev revenue plan woulds scored by the congressional budget office as being a765 765 billion-dollar tax cut, because we are have replacing
revenue lost by expanding other tax cuts, extending all the middle class tax cuts and a expanding middle class tax cutsd up to those earning a million dollars a year, and we are fixin fixing the alternative minimum s tax. o that costs $1.5 billion over thx last ten years. i don't consider that a tax youe increase at all because you ared reducing revenue that would otherwise come into the treasurm under theum alternative minimumm tax as i think all of us think is unfair, and replacing it with revenue by reducing tax the expenditures which even the most conservative economists in the country say needs to be done. is mr. president, that is the blueprint the senate budget committee democrats are laying before the colleagues. we're under no illusions here. we know that this is a year incs
followed. we understand there's a we leadership negotiation at theiae highest level. so we unde.rstand this is not going to be dealt with in the normal course of doing business. we understand there is ale leadership negotiation. but we believe there are some pe ideas in this package that deserve consideration as those negotiations go forward.eagues f mr. president, i thank my colleagues for their courtesyd and their patients, and i look t forward to this continuing debate as we take on the debtur front that looms over the nation. i floor.e presidinoffice >> mr. president, in recent days on a matter of tax expendituress i'm going to address the subject deday everyone is talking about the deficits and debt there are divergent opinions how to deal
with the nation's increasingly perilous fiscal situation.but everyone seems tero agree on. te both of the deficits and theebt debt are unsustainable. thi if we keep going down this pathl the u.s. will face a crisis in similar to that increase and sooner rather than later.l speng federal spending is a share of i our economy to face 15 to 20% 2% greater than its average of 20.6% of gdp this year's level of taxation including the marshall rate of the 2001 to 2003 tax cuts in his the alternative minimum tax or theen amt the federal tax take willkel exceed its share of the economyr nowal, we suggest the deficit ad debt can only be resolved with n thisin is either deliberately
misleading or saturdayre delusional. they are either selling it to the american people refuse to to come to grips with reality.ds id sticking their heads in the sanr is not an option here. as you can see, federal tax and spending as a percentage of gdpo the red line happens to ben descending line. as you can see we are way up here in the 2012 budget. th te blue line help us bring te average between 1960 to 2009, s g d as you can see its way downn here. contr ourol spending is out of controe the markets and the american people understand the nature ofa the crisis. non-defense discretionary spending is at historic levelsrr and our entitlement programs are for bankruptcy nancy pelosiailue responded to congressionalmocrat democrats to come up with a a medicare reform plan we have ard
plan that called medicare. that attitude is a recipe for wnkrupting the nation. a bankruptcy that will take our seniors down with. t here is the undeniable truth. our nation faces a spending ince crisis that tax increases cannod fix. i wish the committee would get e this. the the have the idea of the grand d bargain on deficit-reduction ann spending reduction here and taxy increase their but they miss th. fundamental point. the problem of spending as you, can easily see by this ret lined its way out of whack. back to if going back to raising taxes n on the rich is not going to work the democrats in the senate haven't put forward a budget of i over 800 days is neglecting onen of the core constitutional and l responsibilities that they areng afraid of it coming to all of their spending. will
discotheques of structural accet changes to the biggest programas under any circumstances but also understand the american people e are not the tax increases the would be necessary in the absence of such reforms. rathe this is a difficult position to the answer rather than deal wite the fact, the traffic and mornig obfuscations. this morning i heard the ranking member on the house budget obfua committee following the m president's lead on suggesting we are moving some tax breaks for energy companies to fix our deficit crisis. getting rid of this tax breaks e would raise $21 billion over ths next ten years to reject this fiscal year alone in 2011 wee a will have a projected budgetefit $1.6 trillion so where's the rest of the money going to come i om?ing what last week i thought would be a o relatively noncontroversial i fact. here's what i said. 29
in 2000 by 51% of americans hadr zero or negative income taxt th. liability. here's what that means. in 2009 only 49% of the minorities of all households in this country, 49% of the tax00% units sheltered 100% of theion' nation'ss tax burden, and 51% of the tax units, a majority of the tax units in this country either zero nothing to the irs or got battery it got money that from the irs in excess of the taxliat liability, 23 million of themre got refundable tax credits. they much more than they pay inal employment taxes or social security, and by the become they pay into social security payingt one-third of what they ntimately according to actuaries. they're paying income taxes. this should be no less no controversial than saying thevet
sun rises in the east. sun ris this is aes demonstrable fact ib touched because last week aftere raising this issue on the senatd floor msnbc and bill blogosphere presumably with the points for the senate to democratic wentint ballistic suggesting theg taxes balanced budget by raising taxes on the poor and that surprisedei dismisses my point and the point is no matter what they tell yous these middle class are already % shouldering around 100% of the nation'sio tax burden, and 51% n absolutely nothing in income taxes. furthermore because the -pervere distribution of federal incomeo taxes there's no way to fix thea deficit hold and start paying by down debt by increasing taxes on the so-called rich. here's the bottom line, all of s them talk about taxes on the rich and closing loopholes and going after corporate tax breaks meant to divert attention in ttr
s control spending puts democrats in the position of having to raise taxes the time on the to balance the budget without the structural reforms to the largest spending programs. the y tax increases on the wealthy will not get the nation toance. fiscal balance. even if we let the bush tax bush income-tax bracket, the total raised over ten years would be $615 billion. that's over ten years.is this year alone it is 1.5 tothi $1.6 trillion. this is for the tax expendituree are critical. pretty cleary arafat in my don't remarks i don't want to tax thel poor. those who would help themselves if they could, i don't want to tax them.of all but you can't tell me 51% of all
households are truly poor. don't wa i don't ntwant to tax them eithr to be honest with you. to but we are going to have to find a better way of broadening theax base of the tax system to rate and tax expenditures as though they were the holy grail of thee deficit reduction. close the loopholes and here again. the public is being misled but don't take my word for it. assos today the associated press hadwg to start with the family line o, leader obama on the tax rates and this is a body of the wha article has tot say. the proposals under sonsideration include raisingwnr taxes on small minnesotans and potentially lower and fam middle-income families you heart about that from obama insteadob. the president focuses on the and very rich and speaksmistically of the phrases she has used a fleet to talk about what amounts
to raising taxes for some. what we need to do is to have a balanced approach where everything is onhe the table. we need to take on spending in the tax code. the tax cuts proposed to get rid of our tax breaks for tax millionaires and billionaires,cn tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.s you can't reduce the deficit toe the level what needs to beaving without having some revenue in the next. b the they may hide their intentions but the writing is on the wall. democrats are angry for the historic tax increases on the middle class and the way that they would like to accomplish this is by reducing or b eliminating the tax expenditures. cutting back the taxexures. expenditures is a convenient way for democrats to tax middle class tax paying families without having to say they arego raising their tax rate.raisg tht this is waxhat we were talking w about when the democrats disss discussed tax expenditures, talr talking about your attention and your medicare, they are talkingi
about your ability to purchase r home or save for retirement or y put away for your children's education. what this is exactly what we are talking about. that is where the money is. corporate jets and it's not for energy companies.alk when the democrats talk about ax expenditures and taxas the deficit and ttthe debt theye are putting a bull's-eye on the back of the middle class american families. we heard a lot this morning about republicans looking thekig from the president's board and on the deficit reduction.i knowe i know the people of utah spoke to speaker boehner for not speaking on to the steel.ng thes this morning the president's allies were now asking why. wale republicans walked away from the steel. to with the president willing to on put in time, spending on the art bill, why aren't republicans on willing to put taxes on thetae? first it is worth noting that dm the president and his democratic allies steadfastly refused any s structural changes to the
entitlement spending. and second time for democratse putting taxes on the table and the tax expenditures means tax e increases on the middle class a and that is a nonstarter. this issue of tax expendituresin greater clarity. as the ranking member of the m finance committee it is my the responsibility to direct the record on with the elimination of tax expenditures would really mean families. oth if you listen to my friends on the otherer sside of the aislex you'd think the tax expenditureh are, quote, standing for theode" tax, and of quote. they would have loopholes in the ke special-interest like ethanolher blenders. another montreuil will hear too often revealed by many is why tax expendituresnately befit disproportionat wealthy taxpayers. a few nights ago i talked about what the tax expenditures are. and what the tax expendituresthe they are not spending.
he confided the text of the t speech from july 6 from the finance committee website. they are not in the main loophole for special-interest. d just the everyday i talked withe the major features of the familn financial planning that would be were curtailed. i refer to them as the pension and mentioned charitable giftipr and homeownership gift.ction. successful in cutting back the wx expenditures, american a nae we will be poor because we will have less retirement savings. few were charitable contributions, and more expensive, ownerships. tt you can find the tax to the text from that speech last thursday . on the committee speech as well. i'm going to consider the line that tax expenditures nefit disproportionately benefit the . wealthy taxpayers. for purposes of this discussiont
only, i will of the president's definition of which that is a signals fordj the adjusted gross income over $200,000 per year for married couples with incomes over $250,000 per year. i want to be clear that i do noe love asell these folks into thes bill gates lover on james warren buffett's resident first. here's a good old thurston, she was a millionaire on gilligan's. island. the president's definition of my which most on the other side he use isn't. they also claim tax expenditures reside disproportionately with rich taxpayers. the democrats' rhetoric of its penditures expenditures doesn't jibe with reality of our tax code. ta it's clear tax expenditures can it skewed towards taxpayers onen the president's definition ofch. the rich.if m if my friends on the other side
famine the data, they wouldheyl find that their assertion aboutn the benefits from taxbenefits fm expenditures does not square with the fact. they will find the fall flat on its face to be in much of the of tax expenditures it is an article of things they disproportionately benefit wealthy taxpayers. from the white house and congressionalnd democrats. excei one exception is from theriend, ranking a democrat on the ways and meanson committee.r congressman levin is against the tax expenditures as richich person's tax benefits, and his position is well funded. tax this assertion, the tax expenditure or the benefits of the rich is a tax article datede may 3rd, 201nt1. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record at thisle time. i >> it's written by robert willif
williams of the tax policy center t pc. pol it is a tax policy think tank pu that is the product of the center-left think tanks.resent the article presents conclusions from the analysis of the tax c expenditures. the analysis concludes that about two-thirds of the taxheop expenditures benefit the top hoe onintile of households in the mw study. viewers on c-span me wonder what equine heil is.s it refers to a fifth of thepopu. population. the analysis is thereforefifth basically in theof top fifth of the population.ere according to the study, whereiff does the top fifth of the population began? it begins with $123,000 ofd inc household income. it should be noted householdnco income is a bit isbroader than e adjusted gross income that isinh the basis of the president's
definition. according to the dpc, that o quintile girons 55% of income and the huge burden, a hugehe amount of the federal tax burden. they say it is 67%..c. perhaps surprisingly find that e talkfest share of the t tax burn with the exception of the credit tax expenditures a taxpayer hasn to pay income tax to benefit from the tax deduction credit oe excursion asserting the tax expenditures are mainly wealthy taxpayer benefits are principally relying on the analy distribution analysis.onted if confronted with the dpc datae it seems to me they have fourthr choices.hoice it would the first choice would be to dor
revise downward income basis of their definition of research. they can say we really did not mean families had $250,000 of income. income, we met families of $123,000 of income. the would be similar to thejuste adjustment made for obamacare. the tax distribution table for obamacare showed the otherelow family below $200,000 to receive the exchange credit for familier paid higher taxes. every middle class family that l receives a payment subsidy pays higher tax'ses that is just a fd
>> the second choice would be to revise the tax expenditures so the tax expenditure the tax expenditure dollar amount of extra benefits attributable todt the taxpayers dheefined by the president a house research.de the president's rich taxpayer definition is the top three to e 5% of taxpayers. it o means a group of taxpayers% with roughly 25 to 33% of thesie size of the growth in the tpct r analysis. the population of the, quote, rich, end of quote, tax payers is thro three to four times the size ofe the group of presidents on the other side defined as rich. in a consistent definition of the rich were used, the dollarn amount of tax expenditures would be considerably lower. since the group pushing the expenditures is to relieve spending constituencies and the pressure of curtailing my guess is they will not choose to reduce the tax expenditure.kitt.
it's their choice to be to simply curtail or eliminate tax expenditures for high-incometax. taxpayers.d this of course could eliminate the preferential rate for a couple gains and dividends. let's take another look at thisa because it shows the big share e of the capitol gains tax the expenditure goes to the topit fifth. it looks like about 90 present a tax expenditure a cruise in thep top fifth. you will see about 50% across to the top one-tenth of 1%. do we think would make sense ine the current economic climate to double or triple the tax investment? at one point at least the president's answer was no. in august of 2009 the president explain how raising taxes on any
one knit during a deep recession is going to help with theoing economy, and of quote. he was his response, quote, normally you don't raise taxes on a recession which is why we have and and why we have insteae cut taxes. you don't raise taxes on aaxes i recession. we have to raise taxes on the recession, and of quote.ssio so what isn. the fourth choice? the choice would be coming clean with the american people ande wd under this option they would wmit the tax expendituresy disproportionately go to families who are not rich undero they would acknowledgeth cuttini back the tax expenditures with purchase the debt reduction exercise would hit the middle class and betrayed the and president's promise not to raisr taxes on middle class families.e you can see the components of the tax increases are in political quicksand and there ia additional evidence they arevide struggle against struggle against the facts. i would ask my friends on the me ooher side to take and look of l joint tax distribution table anx
many of the major tax expenditure categories. tax publishers the table each year they are available on theve joint tax website. a i have a chart that summarizesns the percentages of the tax expenditures to the taxpayers $1,000.00 i have to b.ring that with me next time. the break point that is the point the joint taxx uses. the percentage of tax go expenditures that go to taxpayers on the $200,000.it it squares with the definitionf used by the president and theidt liberals as anybody about 200al. falls of dollars is rich under my democratic friends200,000 is definition. anybody under $200,000 is notni. rich. expenditure pamphlet published annually by the nonpartisan joint tax staff. now, we would like to talk about tax expenditures the joint tax d distributes by income. the
i've listed them in order from t down to the lowest in dollar vom volume. isell the first one is well known to co constituents.s it is the mortgage interest deduction. if the taxpayer saves up a downa payment comedy can take the can interest paid on the mortgage ad an itemized deduction. that means for 30% of thebenefio benefit of the mortgage interest tax expenditure goes to theaxpas taxpayers over $200,000. taxpayers with income below $200,000 receive 20 to 70% of the benefit of the mortgageion. interest deduction. how we measure whether thegage t interest deduction disproportionately benefit taxpayers over $200,000? well, there is the lion in the
tax payers approach to this and it reads, quote, compared to the federal tax burden that is the baseline of how much tax is bas shown above and below $200,000. we have a very progressive tax system. tax payers earning more than $200,000 shoulder 64% of the tax burden to taxpayers earning lesr than 200,000 shoulder 36% of the tax burden. taxpayers earning less than 200,000 receive 70% of the mortgage interest deduction while shouldering 36% of the tax burden. benefits from the tax t expenditures? we are going to getea into thato by almost 2-1 taxpayers under 200,000 benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. since $200,000 basically fits the definition of rich by my the friends on the other side of thy all, we can see that other other taxpayers of the medellin come s
disproportionately benefit the mortgage interest deduction. abo ndw, let me talk about anotheree tax expenditure. i'm referring to the earned e.ic .income tax credit. it's a refundable credit. that means taxpayers receive itt whether they pay income tax or r not to read that's why thes whye credit is basically scored spending by the congressional budget office and the joint tax. there is irony about this tax expenditure because it's refun refundable it is more popularith with my friends on the otheren side and other tax expenditurest and that is because the other tax expenditures go to tax payers who actually pay more taxes or actually pay income tax, excuse me. the refundable was popular with my friends on the because it is a road map income redistribution mechanism. president obama and the famouseo exchange with joseph palmer captured the economic theory supporting this when he said we need to, quote, spread the
wealth around. here's the irony. my friends on the other side describe all tax expendituresthe as, quote, spending for the tax. code yet the most supportive of the refundable ones like the earned income credits which becomes little surprised they save their tax expenditure is the one that is scored as is scorekeepers. the earned income credit tax expenditure is refundable, you shouldn't be surprised to findrf the so-called rich taxpayers do not benefit from it. this confirms this point. tax the third tax expenditures the i tax credits. it is by definition limited tol- taxpayers whichta shouldn't be t surprised to find much of it goes to the higher income taxpayers and the chart confirms this point, zero to the taxyers taxpayers over 200,000 come on $
hundred% over 200,000. and what's to canada the state and. local taxes. it is the fourth one on here. it shows 50% of the broadbased doaeduction goes to theoes middle-income families. number five on loveliest is aivn tax benefit marian goodyear toar many of our families.s. it's the itemized deduction for the charitable contributions. tn of all the tax expenditures it charitable are itemized proportion of taxpayers about 200,000 of income the chart says 55%. 45% under $200,000. but to my overall tax and payerf bear 64% of the tax burden to read this is proportionately the
ndaritable deduction benefits u taxpayers under the $200,000 a little more than taxpayers above the 200,000-dollar level. take on t ihe chart. it is the portion of social security benefits right there. anyone of succeeding the tax expenditures and the benefitsits for a good chunk of the seniorig population against what? we are not talking about wealthy seniors according to this charto 2% off that tax and socialcial e security to seniors with income0 over $200,000 my guess is few of the seniors benefited from thisn policy on yachts regularly fly corporate jets. number seven is the itemized deduction for the propertyy right now their constituents take the edge off t that. local t heavy tax with the itemized
deduction. if those on the other side havee their way and eliminate the taxo expenditures without alsonditurs cutting their constituentonstit federal tax rate guesues what r, happens, in the case of local taxes and that would be to raise the property taxes as much as my 35% to get some of my friends io suggest only those are taking p the property tax deduction.this this chart says otherwise. real it says 80% of the property tax benefits go to the taxpayers numbst? number nine on the list is the e itemized deduction for medical penses. expenses.t back o obamacare cut back on that one that ourn t friends on the other side reduce or eliminate thelime side tax expenditures to avoidds dealing with the governmentgove spending, this deduction would re cut back evens more.mo the chart shows the medical itemize deductions that 89% tax
benefit goes to taxpayers earning less than $200,000 the number ten is the dependent child care credit. that this is a modest tax credit the working moms and dads can tap tx like the child tax credit used by middle-income families thefa. chart confirms it.itndicat it indicates 96% of the benefitg an the credit to go to familiesh earning less than $250,000.he l the final item on the list is the student loan interest deductions.enefit is right here. this tax benefit is income all plummeted. not o surprisingly, all the to benefit goes to the taxpayerss earning less than $200,000. 100%. i don't think there's a lot oftn college graduates using the are on the market for exotic butu w friends on the oouther side thid because this benefit is labeledw a tax expenditure, those to a
benefit from it have ther. schooner dhaka in the local mrbor.now, i'm not saying all middle-incomt families benefit from tax from x expenditures. wealthy taxpayers benefit from the capitol gains and dividend rates and let me refer to thisef tax expenditure from 2010 to lis 2014.haf but the lion's share goes to p that part of the middle class me that was already shouldering muf much of the nation's tax burdent expenditures are either in theo theta wealthy taxpayers.s likewise low-income families don't pay receive tax expenditures in aree designed for them on taxpaying . population.the aner is the answer is the taxpayers whoh are not rich by the president's own definition. the answer is middle class ur o families.ion on our side, the reaction to all these choices would be simple. u ttny on our side including the i
ways and means committeerm anairman has put it this way.keh keep your hands off the taxncluk increases including cutbacks ann taxdi expenditures for deficitr. reductions. results the tax expenditures fou tax reform and that we the taxpayers receive the benefits of lower rates and exchange for the broad base. b the broad base what it would reform of tax expenditures ifp i the chairman can't and i have our way. the approach is just another tax increase to right and they will just spend every dime on theth i other side the president gave a press conference and asked what the holdup was arriving at a deficit reduction compromise. pt the answer seems pretty obvious. corary assertions on the left-winge bar his on for the reelection refuses any meaningfultural structural reforms to thethat spending programs that are curr country.th mea that means that the only serious
deficit-reduction available to the democrats is massive tax increases on the middle class. e democrats want to acknowledge the inevitable tax increases their agenda assumes and republican nypublicans won't give the a president any cover in his drive to, quote, spread the wealth around come in dovecote. that is what is holding up the" atocess.e. but we offer a suggestion.let ma instead of them for not signinga on to the historic and economicm tax increases but on a limit ise 9.2%, many should take their own party to the rich head. liber many shouldal ask the liberals o refuse any meaningful reforms to entitlement to get serious.erio. maybe to go on television and say to the american people we d have over $60 trillion of liability and the tax increases balance instead the presidentprd has spread the myth simply rid getting rid of tax expenditures
and the polls, and they the certainly aren't the polls, theg ones i've been talking about sis hour deficit and debt. we have two reasons to worry about that approach. wanna come to the extent thectie deficit reduction energy has did utting back the tax expenditures, pressure is taken. off. the root cause of the deficitd b and the debtt problem.ressure so there is pressure that should br control spisending programs is released. number two, the productive sector of the economy, workers,a small business and investors art burdened with yet more federalry taxes. for many reasons, cutbacks andck wx expenditures are in deficitt reduction ball that won't hunt. if you look at the individual tax expenditures, you can see these are the ten highest taxaco expenditures by percentage. let me go back to the proceedinl chart. if you look at all these tax mog expenditures, the mortgage dedt,
interest, itemized deduction, 70% under 200 paulson, earned income tax, 100%, child tax credit, 100% concede and localer eaxes, 50%, charitable deductiol 45%, and the other rich at 55% i by their definition.enefit social security benefits, 98%, real property tax, itemized deduction, 80%. education credit, 100%. medical itemized deductions, 89%. a dependent child credit, 96%,e, student loan interest, 100%. l now, look my point is we've got to come up with a better tax det code. i am dedicated to changing this also a tax code we have that'seo too complicated, too large, t expensive, doesn't do the job
and is just a bunch of putting their ground by members of congress. simplifying that so everybody knows which ends up. expendi on tax expenditures i'm going tk expenditures. they should be resolved until wo do the real tax reform. and if you have to give up somee of these expenditures, and they're ought to be appropriate reductions to account for thath. and we have to do it by ut the tax system that we all know is just cmpletely out of control and ad completely difficult to comply with. as a matter of fact, i don't len anybody on the senate finance co committee that fills out their n own tax reforms or tax formsould rather. d most of uso -- could because ifu you've got ten different tax preparers on a semi complicateda tax returnbl you probably have n
differentpr approaches to it. that shows a prophetic systemouy that is wrecking the country. just to make clear, when the president took over, the bottom 40% of all households did nothod pay income taxes. they paid payroll taxes but 23 million of them got credits refundable that's more money paid in the payroll taxes. keep in mind i don't believe wey should tax the truly poor but not it's up to 51% in just alilr little over two years under thio administration people who don't pay any income taxes are they all truly poor? i alana was it doesn't sound right to the majority of people, the majority of tax units in this country do not pay taxes and the minority has to carry the poor, burden. be the if there truly poor and a stand
tx them andk i have a 35 year record here of being fair to the poor and to families and above all to children. imant an awful lot of important billsa around here and there's a lot oe bills that help people in how distress. so you can imagine how grieved i felt when one of the great television stations was no me one sentence out of rks o authority minute set of remarks on the floor that made it very clear i don't want to tax the poor, but surely we have to havo everybody participate, and i think that everybody ought to weon ought to all have skin in o game and save this country. we can't do it without the the m middle class idand the middle class j isn't just top 49% of a. wage earners. is a
this is an important issue in te its one that we have to resolve and we have to resolve it fairly and in a way that is meaningfuln and any way that will help save for our country, too. and i think it's made the case you can't just play a little on the so-called three to 5% of the so-called rich which includes r, 800,000 small businesses whereac 70 present of all jobs arerybody created and rebellion knows and eve that's true.ou every time you tax them and taks money away from them like thathh when they are paying hefty taxed and the higher less and do less and they quit their businesses,e some move offshore, some have oh businesses to other countries end some just plain given up. hv we can't let that happen. fai we have to have a fair taxlicanw situation and democrats and republicans working on it
together. we've got to quit thinking -- quit moonves card that basicallc puts one group of people againse another. all i can say is i am concernedn on pointing out difficulties in the tax code ntand some of theee arguments the president is making, and i have to say that anybody that treats my remarks i fairly well know the points that i am making are real. these charts really are important.rtant. and as you can s under $200,000 will be their rift without these benefits we unless we can revamp the wholeon tax code in a way if you don't have to have tax expenditures, tax expenditures are certainly